[Macario]

I have shot sports with FF (in the film era), and now op APS-C with the K-3. And I really cannot think of a reason why to go back to FF just for the sake of shooting sports. I have all the lenses needed (from 8mm until 400) for the sports I shoot.
Also the faster framerate isn't the holy grail. I have many times my camera set on M instead of H (I think it is 5fps vs 8fps). because the more you shoot, the more you have to go through at home. And that takes a lot of time.

[reivax]

My 2c worth.... in Pentax land, unless your life revolves around shooting little skitish birds on sticks.... the K-1 every day. You Sigma will give better IQ with the K-1 over a K3..... and you'll love it.

This image is a 1/3 crop of a K-1 image (12mp)..... I printed it 24" square on canvas at 150dpi and sold three copies recently at a show here ($285 each.... print cost $45) and got $1,000 prize money for second place.... iso 2,000 as well.



I have a K3 and K-1.... and after just shooting everything for something to do (retired)..... I'd now take the K-1 and just get closer to get THE shot.... not just lot's off shots....

Wow, I need to step up my game. My images aren't that clean at 200 ISO. I would love to know your editing process to clean that up so much. If you don't mind me asking, besides the K-1, what equipment and settings did you use?

[normhead]

It's harder to get good images with a K-1 because of the slower burst, but if you get one it's a better image blown up big. AT web size or for 4x6 or 5x7 prints it makes no difference, but the faster burst of the K-3 is a real advantage.

Using the shooting method described here the advantage is definitely to the K-3. Twice as many FPS, twice as much chance of nailing a pose you want.

A K-3 image.


A K-1 image


Unless you are planning to blow up to 30x40 you aren't going to see a lot of difference in IQ. But notice the K-1 images is shot at 3200 ISO a distinct advantage.

A K-1 Image


A K-3 image


With the same lens and set up the K-3 subject will be bigger, but I can shoot 3200 ISO on the K-1 I like to keep it 640 ISO or lower on the K-3.

For images like this in bright light, a subject that will have to be cropped quite a bit no matter which camera you use, the K-3 has a definitely advantage. But really, buy the camera you like and use it for what you want. The K-3 is easier. But if you are using your K-1 for landscape etc. you can get along fine with a K-1. If it's just for birding, the K-3 saves you a lot of money, for the majority of the time better images. But the K-1 will still you give you better images under more uncommon conditions. (you can get close to the bird, light is poor, the bird isn't moving much.) You can make a case for both cameras, and it comes down to personal preference. Personally, out in my blind, I like having both. K-3 for small birds, K-1 for larger birds, I change bodies on my longest lens and take advantage of the strengths of both when appropriate. But if i had to give up one, it would be the K-1.


For landscape, it's K-1 all the time, every time. How do you chose?

[noelpolar]

Wow, I need to step up my game. My images aren't that clean at 200 ISO. I would love to know your editing process to clean that up so much. If you don't mind me asking, besides the K-1, what equipment and settings did you use?

I love nature and it's beauty, mostly just enjoy "enjoying it" ....if you get what I mean, and I take photos as part of that enjoyment, but I rarely really apply myself 100% to get "a shot ". In the case of the bird shot I applied myself..... studied their dailey routne, choose a particular flower (nice flower, background etc), tripod, closeish, waited for ages for a bird to feed onto that flower, just before sunset etc to get the nice side light....dfa 150-450 at 450... f8, 1/250

DXO prime noise reduction, then into Piccure+, then final adjustments in Lightroom.

Small stuff at a distance (birds on a stick) only make up 30% of my shots, probally about the same % I need fast focus and frame rate, so K-1 does me mostly as a reasonable compromise.

[automorphism]

You should ignore the crop factor and compare across cameras instead. Like others have said, the 36mp FF sensor of the K1 cropped will give you similar (if not better) results to the K3 sensor, uncropped. So if that is the only deciding factor then it's not really one at all.

I think you should also consider weight too though. What type of birding do you do? For trips of 5-6 hours of non-stop birding I've found a lighter setup helps a lot for handholding. If you're more of a tripod guy, then that doesn't matter much.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well if budget is no issue then a Olympus om-d-e-m1-mk-ii with the 300mm/f4 lens will give you 600mm equivalent in a compact package.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Almost all of my shooting is of birds and I prefer the K1 over the K3. The sensor is so much better and cropping images look better than the images from a K3. The loss of FPS is so small you will not be able to notice it.

When I ordered the K1 the plan was to use it for macro stuff and use the K3 for wildlife but after putting the K1 on the 560 it rarely comes off. I shoot lots of bald eagles and ospreys fishing and can get the dive,grab and pull up with no problem. I think the K1 is so much better I'm thinking of selling my K3 and picking up a second K1.

The pixel density from a 24mp cropped sensor to a 36mp FF is only a factor of 1.22 so all you are gaining on a 300mm lens is 360mm FOV with a 24mp cropped sensor. Like you I tend to look for the IQ from the other side of the spectrum, that would be using the largest Focal length for a give field of view

[clackers]

The pixel density from a 24mp cropped sensor to a 36mp FF is only a factor of 1.22 so all you are gaining on a 300mm lens is 360mm FOV with a 24mp cropped sensor. Like you I tend to look for the IQ from the other side of the spectrum, that would be using the largest Focal length for a give field of view

But you are getting a 1.22 resolution bonus from the pixel density then an additional 1.5 boost from the focal length.

You are laying down many more pixels on the same small target from the same distance.

Aren't you an ex-Pentaxian, a Nikon guy now?

If so, there are many reasons to prefer a D500 to a D5.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

But you are getting a 1.22 resolution bonus from the pixel density then an additional 1.5 boost from the focal length.

You are laying down many more pixels on the same small target from the same distance.

Aren't you an ex-Pentaxian, a Nikon guy now?

If so, there are many reasons to prefer a D500 to a D5.

If I shoot a 36mp in cropped mode I get the benefit of the 1.5 boost, the 24mp sensor pixel density over that cropping 36mp only gives you further reach of 1.23 so you only gain 60+-mm on a 300mm lens
If you follow a lot of the Nikon shooters that are using FF, they are interested in seeing what is coming with regard to the D820

If Nikon does what it has done in the past with the D8xx line bodies and offer the same AF modules as that found in the pro line D5/500 bodies while increasing the pixel density to 42-46 listening too people they are more interested in just using D820FF for wildlife work with just a modest increase in FPS the D8xx line.

Following a lot of the wildlife photographers that are using the D500 and D810 prefer the D500 for its AF and frame rate, and with a modest pixel density half way in between a cropped 24mp and 36mp FF sensor many prefer the D810 IQ when frame rate and AF performance of the D500 is not required.

I can not speak for the D5 as I have no interest in that body.

[Schraubstock]

You're basically making your lenses get fifty percent more reach,

Clackers, you don't get more reach. A 300mm lens is still a 300mm lens no matter which camera you stick it on.

In case of a crop camera there is a benefit to be perceived because your target subject appears larger in the view finder and that sure enough makes hunting down birds, for example, easier. I grant you that, but your lens is still 300mm, (if that's what you were using) nothing changes.

I wish people would finally understand this. Sticking a 300mm for lens, for example, onto a crop camera is not metamorphosing it into a 450mm lens.

Cheers

[bm75]

Sticking a 300mm for lens, for example, onto a crop camera is not metamorphosing it into a 450mm lens.

No one said that, neither Clackers. But that's a fact that, , given a FL, given a distance to the subject, a crop sensor registers the 1,5 crop of the FF area, thus a 300 mm (whose Fl doesn't change, for sure) acts like a 450 mm in the FOV matter. So you choose: to achieve the FOV obtained with the APSC you: 1 reduce the distance from the subject, reducing the FOV*, 2- use a longer lens with FF. It's a fact that people using FF for birding use long teles (400-600 mm). They're EXPENSiVE .

* actually filling the frame

[clackers]

Clackers, you don't get more reach.

Pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about, Schraubstock.

You must not shoot wildlife or macro.

[normhead]

In case of a crop camera there is a benefit to be perceived because your target subject appears larger in the view finder and that sure enough makes hunting down birds, for example, easier.

I wish people would finally understand this. Sticking a 300mm for lens, for example, onto a crop camera is not metamorphosing it into a 450mm lens.

Cheers

I'm not sure you actually own these cameras. The wider field of view on a K-1 with the same lens makes it easier to find birds, but they are smaller in the SOC file when you photograph them.

The tighter pixel density of a K-3 gives you a larger subject image with the same lens and distance, and more subject resolution.

Sitting in my blind and switching bodies from a K-1 to a K-3, I get both a larger bird among the background because of the narrower FoV. I get 24 MP where the K-1 can only put 15.

How is that not "more reach?"

What you say would be true its the same pixel density. But at least in Pentax land, APS-c and FF do not use the same pixel densities. So effectively a K-3, K-70, or KP will give you "more reach" with the same lens. 300 on APS-c is about the same as 400 on a K-1 in terms of the subject size and resolution, in SOC file.

So that's why folks say APS-c give you more reach. It's a bit of a simplification but still more accurate than saying a K-3 doesn't give you more reach than a K-1.

Since you are probably cropping anyway, the K-3 gives you a larger (in pixels) more detailed (in real world measurement) image.

I seriously don't understand how anyone could look at the images posted above and not understand that the K-3 gives you more subject resolution and size in the area of the crop sensor. The K-1 only gives you more resolution if you don't have to crop. In birding, you almost always have to crop. With APS-c you have to crop less.

But to be technically correct, it's the higher pixel density in the APS-c bodies that gives them more reach, not the sensor size. It just so happens that 24 MP end APS-c bodies have higher pixels densities than 36 Mp FF bodies do. A technical anomaly leading to confusion in the ranks.

That all condenses into "a K-3 gives you more reach than a K-1, with the same lens." based on a sampling of of SOC images. If you leave APS-c and FF sensor sizes out of it, it's pretty straightforward. If you shoot a small subject from the same lenses from the same position, the K-3 will give you a 50% larger image with 30% more detail. Instead of a 300mm lens, you'd have to shoot 400mm FF to get the advantage of the 36 MP sensor, same sized subject, same resolution.

That would be my sticky.

Or to use a real world example, I accidentally went out to my blind yesterday with the K-1 on my 500mm lens instead of my K-3. What a disappointment. I fuddled around K-1 style for a while, realized how severely limited I was, and went back to the house and switched. I won't knowingly do that again.

[bm75]

I suppose Schraubstock was referring to the optical qualities of the lens, i.e. for example,min. focus distance impling magnification. In this case, I suppose, he was referring to the fact that the min focusing distance of a 300 remains the same, as the opt. qualitiesof the lens, no matter the crop involved by different sensor size. Perhaps I suppose he prefers shooting with FF + 600mm from a distance in crop mode than being nearer with a shorter tele. I would be confortable with a 600 mm lens only in LV... Nikon/Canon gear have a different approach with in-lens stabilization that permits a comfortable view with OVF.

[normhead]

I suppose Schraubstock was referring to the optical qualities of the lens, i.e. for example,min. focus distance impling magnification. In this case, I suppose, he was referring to the fact that the min focusing distance of a 300 remains the same, as the opt. qualitiesof the lens, no matter the crop involved by different sensor size.

Even that is misleading. Compare a 24 MP FF lens and an 24 MP APS-c and the the APS-c has the same resolution in LW/PH with a much narrower field of view. No modern lens is outresovled by a 24 MP FF sensor. In anything made in the last 10 years, the APS-c lens is going to increase resolution on the subject, simply by having a finer sampling grid and taking advantage of the resolving power you paid for when you bought your lens. Don't get me wrong, there are rendering advantages to FF and larger sensor cameras, but reach and resolving power aren't among them.

SO even discussing the optical qualities of the lens, APS-c gets more resolution out of whatever lens you own than the same MP FF camera in the area covered by the APS-c crop. If you're talking 24 MP FF and 24 MP APS-c, the area of the crop sensor on the 24 MP FF will be less than half the resolving power of the APS-c 24 MP sensor. Using a 500 mm on FF instead of on APS-c will produce an 11 MP file instead of 24 and cost you half your resolution, on the subject, at the same distance.

Everything I've said so far i predicted on 24 MP APS-c and 36 MP FF. If you go down to 18-24 MP like most FF action cameras the effect of more reach becomes even more dramatic.